I wanted to add one more thing. The California State Income Tax Agency does not follow due process laws. If the agency believes that you owe them money, they simply take it from you. You have to hire a lawyer to prove it was never owed to try to get it back. So it couldn't have been the State of California going after Biden because they don't indict for tax issues.
Good research and well said. However they can't take something they can't prove, meaning CA would have to wait until this plays out in Federal Court before they have a chance to get any money from Hunter.
If the feds prove that Hunter has illicit money he did not pay taxes on, CA could (and would) go after their share after the feds collect their share. CA wouldn't even have to spend the money investigating anything either since the feds would've already done that and gotten a judgement. Free money to CA.
I do not doubt that, once the Feds prove Hunter made money, California will have its hand out for their 13.3%.
But please do not give the California Taxation Agency the benefit of the doubt that they would attempt to prove money is owed prior to collecting. Their standard operating procedure is to assume you made money even if there is no evidence indicating that you did, and then steal the income tax that is allegedly owed out of your bank account. They actually have multiple tools for doing this.
For example, in my case, I bought my house before I was married. Once married, I became a SAHM. Since the mortgage was only in my name, the taxation agency refused to believe that my husband paid the mortgage and insisted that I made an income that was enough to cover the mortgage. My disputes against the fake income they assessed were "misfiled" by the tax agency and then there was a notice of levy put in place without a court hearing where I could prove that this income never existed.
Another tool they use is if someone has a business license, they assume that the person makes the average income of someone with that license and assesses a tax liability based on the average income, even if the person never made a dime doing whatever they had the license for.
They have a bunch more tools in their tool bag. This is just one example.
I wanted to add one more thing. The California State Income Tax Agency does not follow due process laws. If the agency believes that you owe them money, they simply take it from you. You have to hire a lawyer to prove it was never owed to try to get it back. So it couldn't have been the State of California going after Biden because they don't indict for tax issues.
I actually made a speech about the lack of due process on Wednesday at the agency's board meeting (5-min video, item number 3): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGrxwZjythI&list=PLAkSTXk9sO0FpPKvyQe6JDo8_crqgRWMd&index=9. Since the speech was limited to 5-minutes, I also submitted a more detailed request in writing: https://gwsandiego.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/2023-ATBOR-Requests-.pdf
Good research and well said. However they can't take something they can't prove, meaning CA would have to wait until this plays out in Federal Court before they have a chance to get any money from Hunter.
If the feds prove that Hunter has illicit money he did not pay taxes on, CA could (and would) go after their share after the feds collect their share. CA wouldn't even have to spend the money investigating anything either since the feds would've already done that and gotten a judgement. Free money to CA.
I do not doubt that, once the Feds prove Hunter made money, California will have its hand out for their 13.3%.
But please do not give the California Taxation Agency the benefit of the doubt that they would attempt to prove money is owed prior to collecting. Their standard operating procedure is to assume you made money even if there is no evidence indicating that you did, and then steal the income tax that is allegedly owed out of your bank account. They actually have multiple tools for doing this.
For example, in my case, I bought my house before I was married. Once married, I became a SAHM. Since the mortgage was only in my name, the taxation agency refused to believe that my husband paid the mortgage and insisted that I made an income that was enough to cover the mortgage. My disputes against the fake income they assessed were "misfiled" by the tax agency and then there was a notice of levy put in place without a court hearing where I could prove that this income never existed.
Another tool they use is if someone has a business license, they assume that the person makes the average income of someone with that license and assesses a tax liability based on the average income, even if the person never made a dime doing whatever they had the license for.
They have a bunch more tools in their tool bag. This is just one example.